Skip to main content

How and why did the Civil Rights movement change from one that was primarily non-violent to one that was more activist?

There was a shift in the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s. While the movement had generally been one focused on nonviolent protests, there was more activism in the 1960s.


Some African-Americans believed that change would come quicker if more confrontational activities occurred. They believed that non-violent protests weren’t bringing about change quickly enough. They believed that attitudes really hadn’t shifted a great deal, especially in the South.


Groups like the Black Panthers and the Nation of Islam advocated stronger actions to try to deal with the issues that were affecting the African-American community. In some instances, this involved confrontational actions. They believed this would bring about change faster than relying on purely non-violent methods. Bobby Seale and Huey Percy Newton founded the Black Panthers. While they weren’t afraid to use violence, they wanted to make life better for the African-American people. They developed a ten-point plan to bring about equality in housing, education, employment, and civil rights.


Martin Luther King, Jr. was concerned about the direction the Civil Rights Movement could take. He addressed these concerns in a famous letter that he wrote while he was in jail in Birmingham in 1963. In his letter, he talked about how his actions in Birmingham were viewed as extreme. He took issue with that statement. He said his movement stood in the middle between two opposing groups in the Civil Rights Movement. He talked about one group that was ready to give up because they had been beaten down so often. He mentioned the other group consisted of people that were angry and bitter. He hinted that these groups would be more willing to support violence and specifically mentioned the Nation of Islam. He indicated his group is more moderate and shouldn’t be viewed as an extremist group.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.